The ethical dilemma of the accused spouse - Alex Worsnip
video description
Date: 2022-04-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Whitney
YES! I would believe my husband is innocent no matter what the evidence against him is. because I know my husband and I love my husband and I know he wouldnt just do something like that. I'm not going to immediately make assumptions and jump to the worst case scenario and assume the worst of my husband. My husband deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the evidence is and I will believe he is innocent until he tells me otherwise. If you wouldn't give your spouse the benefit of the doubt and you would immediately jump to assuming they're guilty, you don't really love them and you definitely shouldn't be in a relationship with them. Your spouse who you choose to marry deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the circumstances are. Also a famous criminal defense attorney was asked how he can defend someone he believes is guilty. and he always tells the story about how when he first started practicing law his job was to defend this guy and he 100% believe this guy was guilty. because he believed this guy was guilty he didn't give him the best defense that he could have given him. and that guy ended up being convicted. a few years later it comes out that that guy truly was innocent and he spent five years in prison as an innocent man. and that criminal defense attorney blames himself. he said from that day forward he always believes his client is innocent because it is his job to give his client the best defense they can possibly get regardless of what the evidence is. that is how our justice system is set up and in order for our justice system to work correctly every single person deserves the best defense possible.
reply
YES! I would believe my husband is innocent no matter what the evidence against him is. because I know my husband and I love my husband and I know he wouldnt just do something like that. I'm not going to immediately make assumptions and jump to the worst case scenario and assume the worst of my husband. My husband deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the evidence is and I will believe he is innocent until he tells me otherwise. If you wouldn't give your spouse the benefit of the doubt and you would immediately jump to assuming they're guilty, you don't really love them and you definitely shouldn't be in a relationship with them. Your spouse who you choose to marry deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the circumstances are. Also a famous criminal defense attorney was asked how he can defend someone he believes is guilty. and he always tells the story about how when he first started practicing law his job was to defend this guy and he 100% believe this guy was guilty. because he believed this guy was guilty he didn't give him the best defense that he could have given him. and that guy ended up being convicted. a few years later it comes out that that guy truly was innocent and he spent five years in prison as an innocent man. and that criminal defense attorney blames himself. he said from that day forward he always believes his client is innocent because it is his job to give his client the best defense they can possibly get regardless of what the evidence is. that is how our justice system is set up and in order for our justice system to work correctly every single person deserves the best defense possible.
reply
Kamizushi
It's kinda harsh. A few months ago I can out of a relationship with a person who had been gaslighting me for years. The thing is, I already had a lot of reasons, for years, to know they were gaslighters, but I didn't want to admit it, because I loved them. I was madly in love. So I ended up doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to justify their lies, their broken promises. I often accepted part of the responsibility for their behaviors, just because it seams important for them to not be the bad person in any given situation. The result was years of confusion, distress, having my heart broken again and again. There are still a lot of things I won't be able to detangle, for having tried so hard in the past to believe them. Lot's of things I will never know.
Point being, not trusting your partner when you should will surely damage your relationship, but trusting your partner when you shouldn't might very well damage you. So perhaps then believing the strongest evidence is the best approach. Trust tentatively at first, observe, and trusts their actions more than you trust their words. If their actions and their words tend to match, you can trust their words. Otherwise, you shouldn't.
reply
It's kinda harsh. A few months ago I can out of a relationship with a person who had been gaslighting me for years. The thing is, I already had a lot of reasons, for years, to know they were gaslighters, but I didn't want to admit it, because I loved them. I was madly in love. So I ended up doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to justify their lies, their broken promises. I often accepted part of the responsibility for their behaviors, just because it seams important for them to not be the bad person in any given situation. The result was years of confusion, distress, having my heart broken again and again. There are still a lot of things I won't be able to detangle, for having tried so hard in the past to believe them. Lot's of things I will never know.
Point being, not trusting your partner when you should will surely damage your relationship, but trusting your partner when you shouldn't might very well damage you. So perhaps then believing the strongest evidence is the best approach. Trust tentatively at first, observe, and trusts their actions more than you trust their words. If their actions and their words tend to match, you can trust their words. Otherwise, you shouldn't.
reply
Raul
Don't you have a duty to consider the victims of the crime too? Besides believing in the rational explaination the evidence provides, shouldn't you consider how supporting your spouse would hurt the victim's friends, family, or even their spouse? I would probably need more evidense anyway then given what's in this quick video. But I wonder what spouses of murders think about this ethical question: after all this has happened countless times in real life.
After all before you do anything reckless, like commit murder, you should consider how your actions can hurt you and the ones you love.
But internally I feel if I were the spouse answering the door to police here to arrest my husband. I'd believe their plea and hire a good lawyer. While of course looking at the evidense with a fine tooth comb of logic and and unbiased view.
reply
Don't you have a duty to consider the victims of the crime too? Besides believing in the rational explaination the evidence provides, shouldn't you consider how supporting your spouse would hurt the victim's friends, family, or even their spouse? I would probably need more evidense anyway then given what's in this quick video. But I wonder what spouses of murders think about this ethical question: after all this has happened countless times in real life.
After all before you do anything reckless, like commit murder, you should consider how your actions can hurt you and the ones you love.
But internally I feel if I were the spouse answering the door to police here to arrest my husband. I'd believe their plea and hire a good lawyer. While of course looking at the evidense with a fine tooth comb of logic and and unbiased view.
reply
Jack
In addition to the For better or worse clause in most people's wedding vows (because you can write your own vows, the US has a legal tradition that just because the police show up at your door with evidence to arrest someone, that the person arrested by the police is only accused of committing the crime and is to be considered innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law. Sadly, this tradition seems to be going to the wayside in a lot of areas outside the legal system. People have lost jobs, friends, and even spouses on only the accusation of committing a crime. Thanks to a more virulent news industry only interested in selling eyeballs to advertisers, even in events where people were acquitted of their crimes in a court of law, they spent years and decades trying to convince people they're innocent.
reply
In addition to the For better or worse clause in most people's wedding vows (because you can write your own vows, the US has a legal tradition that just because the police show up at your door with evidence to arrest someone, that the person arrested by the police is only accused of committing the crime and is to be considered innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law. Sadly, this tradition seems to be going to the wayside in a lot of areas outside the legal system. People have lost jobs, friends, and even spouses on only the accusation of committing a crime. Thanks to a more virulent news industry only interested in selling eyeballs to advertisers, even in events where people were acquitted of their crimes in a court of law, they spent years and decades trying to convince people they're innocent.
reply
Cole
Horribly simplified and misleading. In the hypothetical, you need not believe any position. Consider the visible factors and the uncertain probabilities. Fingerprints on a knife is not proof, as there are non-murderous circumstances that allow for them to exist. Perhaps the spouse was cheating with the murder victim who was then murdered by their own spouse for infidelity, and the prints were at the scene because of Spouse A's other misdeeds. Perhaps they were planted or there was a mistaken in identification. Spouse A may have gone to the scene after the fact, found the incident, touched things, and refrained from reporting it for concern of the freedom of the actual murderer. The suggestion of a possibility, in this case being the prints and accusation, is not suitable grounds to pick a side.
reply
Horribly simplified and misleading. In the hypothetical, you need not believe any position. Consider the visible factors and the uncertain probabilities. Fingerprints on a knife is not proof, as there are non-murderous circumstances that allow for them to exist. Perhaps the spouse was cheating with the murder victim who was then murdered by their own spouse for infidelity, and the prints were at the scene because of Spouse A's other misdeeds. Perhaps they were planted or there was a mistaken in identification. Spouse A may have gone to the scene after the fact, found the incident, touched things, and refrained from reporting it for concern of the freedom of the actual murderer. The suggestion of a possibility, in this case being the prints and accusation, is not suitable grounds to pick a side.
reply
SHIRO
Why would what they had done change your emotional attachment?
Doesn t mean you like what they may have done.
Doesn t change you love them.
This silly social pressure of turning your back on someone is ridiculous
You can love and support someone even if you absolutely despise and hate and or disgusted by their actions
Love isn t a choice it s a commitment you know till death do us part in a marriage vow type commitment.
Honestly society needs to stop pressuring folk into just simply turning their backs on people.
Remember theirs innocent folk around sed person and just because someone they love does something doesn t mean they have a switch that just turns everything off like they are expected too or bullied into by social fear and pressure and judgment.
reply
Why would what they had done change your emotional attachment?
Doesn t mean you like what they may have done.
Doesn t change you love them.
This silly social pressure of turning your back on someone is ridiculous
You can love and support someone even if you absolutely despise and hate and or disgusted by their actions
Love isn t a choice it s a commitment you know till death do us part in a marriage vow type commitment.
Honestly society needs to stop pressuring folk into just simply turning their backs on people.
Remember theirs innocent folk around sed person and just because someone they love does something doesn t mean they have a switch that just turns everything off like they are expected too or bullied into by social fear and pressure and judgment.
reply
bill
As a statistician I would think using a Bayesian mindset. For those of you not familiar with Bayesian statistics it basically combines your initial beliefs (before the police arrives) and then the data/evidence to form a sophisticated guess.
In more detail, what is my prior belief that he is innocent? Then how likely is for these pieces of evidence to appear given if he is innocent or given that he is guilty. Then I would do the math for the final (posterior) probability.
For the prior belief I would choose a high percentage towards his innocence(say 90% he is innocent. Then I would calculate everything objectively and I would be able to argue to both myself as well as him why I came up with this conclusion/belief
reply
As a statistician I would think using a Bayesian mindset. For those of you not familiar with Bayesian statistics it basically combines your initial beliefs (before the police arrives) and then the data/evidence to form a sophisticated guess.
In more detail, what is my prior belief that he is innocent? Then how likely is for these pieces of evidence to appear given if he is innocent or given that he is guilty. Then I would do the math for the final (posterior) probability.
For the prior belief I would choose a high percentage towards his innocence(say 90% he is innocent. Then I would calculate everything objectively and I would be able to argue to both myself as well as him why I came up with this conclusion/belief
reply
education
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of being willing and even capable of considering alternative explanations instead of closed-minded and just accepting the first thing you hear. For example, maybe she was examining kitchenware at the store the other day and someone bought a knife she had touched. Far too many people (worst of all, law-enforcement) are unable or unwilling to even consider other explanations and just go with the first, quickest, and easiest thing that falls in their lap and be done with it instead of doing any actual work of you know, INVESTIGATING, cops frequently do more work to find a way to make the evidence fit their first suspect than bother to find any other suspects.
reply
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of being willing and even capable of considering alternative explanations instead of closed-minded and just accepting the first thing you hear. For example, maybe she was examining kitchenware at the store the other day and someone bought a knife she had touched. Far too many people (worst of all, law-enforcement) are unable or unwilling to even consider other explanations and just go with the first, quickest, and easiest thing that falls in their lap and be done with it instead of doing any actual work of you know, INVESTIGATING, cops frequently do more work to find a way to make the evidence fit their first suspect than bother to find any other suspects.
reply
Lionkatus
While evidence, as defined by a court of law, is convincing to a jury, there is everything to be said about building a life with someone. There is an amount of character that cannot be faked, and it genuinely is stronger than what other people believed happened. If you can find it in your heart to distrust someone you've known to be good for so long, there were already cracks in the foundation that were ignored
reply
While evidence, as defined by a court of law, is convincing to a jury, there is everything to be said about building a life with someone. There is an amount of character that cannot be faked, and it genuinely is stronger than what other people believed happened. If you can find it in your heart to distrust someone you've known to be good for so long, there were already cracks in the foundation that were ignored
reply
Alex
Since there's a possibility other than the spouse being the murderer (they could have picked up the weapon before and not commited the murder, you should still maintain that they're innocent. Unless there is irrefutable evidence to the crime, such as a video of them commiting it, and/or overwhelming evidence that they commited the crime, I think that supporting your spouse is the correct moral course of action.
reply
Since there's a possibility other than the spouse being the murderer (they could have picked up the weapon before and not commited the murder, you should still maintain that they're innocent. Unless there is irrefutable evidence to the crime, such as a video of them commiting it, and/or overwhelming evidence that they commited the crime, I think that supporting your spouse is the correct moral course of action.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
